The Criminal Ordinance imposed on conquered territories by the British colonial regime provided for the detention of people at the pleasure of His Majesty, the King of
It is on record that some of those traditional rulers died in exile. At the end of colonial rule, the obnoxious provision of detaining citizens at the pleasure of governors was retained in the criminal procedure codes of the independent states, including
To legitimise the colonial legacy, the
The governor has been singled out for sustained attack in the media because section 484 of the Law has conferred powers on him to detain people at his own pleasure. Instead of the diversionary fixation on the Imo State Law it is high time the constitutionality of keeping citizens in custody at the pleasure of the
Justifications for detaining citizens at the pleasure of governors: Section 484 of the
Section 485 thereof states that: "A person detained during the governor's pleasure may at any time be discharged by the governor on license. The license under the section may at anytime be revoked or varied by the governor and where license has been revoked the person to whom the license relates shall proceed to such place as the governor may direct and if he fails to do so, may be arrested without warrant and taken to such place."
In supporting the controversial sections of the
With respect, the case is totally irrelevant as the constitutional validity of section 208 of the repealed Criminal Procedure Law of Edo State was not considered by the Supreme Court. In fact, when the constitutionality of a similar provision was raised in the case of
Other lawyers have made a strong case for the retention of the provision of the law on the grounds that the order is always made by courts to detain convicted children and persons who are non-compos mentis.
It is submitted, without any fear of contradiction, that the provisions of all laws that empower citizens to be detained at the pleasure of the Federal Attorney-General and State Governors cannot be justified under section 35 of the
No doubt, the human right to personal liberty is not absolute. But no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in strict compliance with a procedure permitted by law.
Hence, the conditions under which people may be legally deprived of their fundamental right to personal liberty are set out in sections 35.
It is specifically stated that "persons suffering from infectious or contagious disease, persons of unsound mind, persons addicted to drugs or alcohol or vagrants" may be deprived of their liberty "for the purpose of their care or treatment or the protection of the community".
Section 330 of the Lagos State ACJL 2015 is in pari materia with Section 484 of the Imo State ACJL 2020 except that the term "at the pleasure of the governor" is used instead of "at the discretion of the Governor" in the Lagos State ACJL.
Since the President is busy with the management of the affairs of the Republic the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) is empowered by section 438 of the
It is submitted that no violation of fundamental rights to personal liberty and fair hearing can be worse than the treatment that is meted out to a convict who is detained indefinitely at the pleasure of the
In other words, neither the
More so that it is only the
Usurpation of judicial powers by the executive: It is submitted that the
To that extent, all laws which have conferred powers on state governors to detain convicted offenders at their pleasure are illegal and unconstitutional.
This point was sufficiently addressed in the case of Hinds and other v The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, Attorney General of
Vanguard News Nigeria
Copyright Vanguard. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com)., source